New religion

[Carnavon]

Myabe Carnavon isn't getting something: he hasn't listed a single historical document with any more credibility than the Bible, to support the Bible. That's like picking two people from McDonald's at random, and asking them to support the claim that McDonald's is clearly better than Burger King. You know what they're going to say, whether it's true or not, so they can't be used as proof for everyone else.

An erroneous and false statement. Reference to Celsus and Tacitus are extra-biblical, not so? It is really a pity that no proper argument on accuracy of the information of the Bible is provided, mere claims in the air - and very often false as in this case.

[The Grand Nudger]

You wanted to talk prophecy? Why? What a pointless cross to bleed and die on.

Here, I'll have the entire prophecy conversation with you.

There is no such thing as prophecy, there has never been such a thing. There are no examples of actual prophecy in all of human experience, nor is there any mechanism by which it could occur.

[Carnavon]

[The Grand Nudger]

Should I link all the reasons to believe in the truthfulness of Dracula, verified by physical evidence? I can do it with one bullet point.

-London exists.

Consider Dracula proven. Now what you ignorant vampire deniers BOOYAH!

(I love number 8 btw, no such prophecy, and still no mechanism by which prophecy is possible)

[Carnavon]

Should I link all the reasons to believe in the truthfulness of Dracula, verified by physical evidence? I can do it with one bullet point.

-London exists.

Consider Dracula proven. Now what you ignorant vampire deniers BOOYAH!

(I love number 8 btw, no such prophecy, and still no mechanism by which prophecy is possible)

The point is actually just that there is overwhelming physical proof that the history recorded seems very accurate. If claims for truth is made and what can be verified agrees with the record, the claims receive a high degree of credibility. Compare this with the claims of fraud made in the video above, it strongly suggests that there is error in what is put forward as evidence for evolution, for instance and seriously jeopardizes the credibility of the theory. In essence then, it seems we can trust what is written in the Bible whereas we must really carefully look at what is presented as evidence for evolution.

[DeistPaladin]

Every time I hear a Christian apologist, with a straight face, seriously suggest that the compilation of Judeo-Christian mythology known as the Bible should be taken seriously as a collection of "historical documents", I always think of...



I hope one day humanity achieves the creation of a fully rational society where anyone who puts forward religious mythology as "history" will be laughed out of the room in my the same way we might a professor who suggests without any evidence that Elvis is still alive, Bigfoot is out there or he was the victim of an alien abduction.

[Carnavon]

Every time I hear a Christian apologist, with a straight face, seriously suggest that the compilation of Judeo-Christian mythology known as the Bible should be taken seriously as a collection of "historical documents", I always think of...



I hope one day humanity achieves the creation of a fully rational society where anyone who puts forward religious mythology as "history" will be laughed out of the room in my the same way we might a professor who suggests without any evidence that Elvis is still alive, Bigfoot is out there or he was the victim of an alien abduction.

I suggest you put forward some proper evidence, and not stereotypes on which you base your conclusions. That will be great. And the more recent evidence, the better.

[The Grand Nudger]

I did, London, ergo vampires, and specifically Dracula, exist. Why don't you want to argue with me on that? Could it be that you've realized that in doing so you would be arguing against your own claims?
(or maybe you realize that Dracula as a historical record is absurd, and suffer from cognitive dissonance the minute the bible is invoked as the same by the same argument)

[DeistPaladin]

I suggest you put forward some proper evidence, and not stereotypes on which you base your conclusions. That will be great. And the more recent evidence, the better.

Evidence for what? That we shouldn't use religious mythology and reliable historical evidence for events or people? I need to provide evidence to support that conviction?

You have the same conviction, I'll wager, when it comes to the mythology of other religions. You don't use the Iliad to conclude that Zeus existed and that his pantheon of gods and goddesses were involved on different sides of the Trojan War.

Now we do know there was a Troy and possibly a real war on which the myths were based only because of archaeological evidence that independently confirms it. Does that mean we necessarily conclude that Zeus must be real? Of course not. Neither do we consider that Achilles really was invincible except for his heel or that there's any truth to the supernatural beings Odysseus encountered in his trip home.

The Bible belongs on the same shelf as the Iliad. It's not a collection of "historical documents". It's a collection of myths.

[The Grand Nudger]

The Bible belongs on the same shelf as the Iliad. It's not a collection of "historical documents". It's a collection of myths.

As long as those two aren't shelved with Dracula I have no disagreement.